Genesis Vol 3.pdf - College Press

14:l-12 GENESIS
victims of the vilest of passions, bo
natural use into that which is agains
18:20, 19:5; Deut. 23:17; Rom. 1 -27; 2 Pet. 2:7-8).
Apparently at the very outset Lot tur
ment because “the quiet tenor of
pany of Abram was not sufficient
craved the diversions and the ex
life.”
Of course Lot may not have shared their sins;
indeed we are told explicitly that he was
lasciviousness and violence which preyailed
nevertheless it would seem that a truly godly man would
have, from the very first, shunned such associations. The
lesson to be derived from Lot’s defection is realistic, namely,
that what happened to Lot happens to every mm who
pitches his tent toward Sodom.
The Invasion from the East (vv. 1-12).
Destructive
literary criticism of the Bible treats this story of the Battle
of the Kings more or less contemptuously. For example,
the following comment (JB, p. 29, n.) : ‘This chapter does
not belong to any of the three great sources of Genesis.
Behind it lies a document of great age which has been
touched up so as to give greater prominence to Abraham,
extolling his bravery and selflessness and calling attention
to his connection with Jerusalem. The episode is not im-
probable provided we understand the campaign as an ex-
pedition to clear the caravan route to the Red Sea and
Abraham’s part in it as a raid on the rear of a column
laden with booty. But the narrative does not help to place
Abraham historically because the persons mentioned cannot
be identified: Amraphel is not, as is often asserted, the
famous king of Babylon, Hammurabi. All we can say is
that the narrative finds its most‘ natural setting in the
conditions of the 19th century B.C.” Morgenstern calls
the entire chapter a midrash (Le., an explanation of Hebrew
Scripture dating from between the 4th century B.C., and
the 11th century of the Christian era), composed to
106